IT SEEMS to be everywhere. In cookware, rain gear, dog food bags and surgical devices. It’s even in space, in the form of space suits.

It’s the chemical that makes a frying pan nonstick, a jacket water-resistant, the lining of the paper dog food bag resistant to oil. Manufacturers and consumers have come to rely on PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) for many modern conveniences. However, there’s a price. As detailed in the groundbreaking series “A Body’s Burden” by our environmental reporter, Douglas Fischer, the chemical builds up in our bodies. A federal scientific advisory panel has linked it to certain cancers in lab animals.

A coalition of labor and environmental groups last month called on the governor to force manufacturers to label products containing the chemical, according to the requirements of Proposition 65.

We agree that, given the questions about the concentration of the chemical in our bodies, products containing PFOA should be labeled. Consumers have the right to know what’s in the products they purchase.

For all the convenience it offers, the chemical is disturbingly long-lasting. It is considered practically indestructible in the environment and takes four years before half of it is purged from the human body.

A spokesman for an environmental group calls it one of the “nastiest, most toxic, environmentally unfriendly chemicals.”

On the other hand, DuPont, the only U.S. manufacturer of the chemical, dismisses the concern as unwarranted, saying there are “no human health effects associated with PFOA.” It says a Proposition 65 warning is unjustified.

Typically, when such a warning is required, manufacturers find ways to eliminate the chemical from their products.

In this case, scientists aren’t sure how the chemical gets into our bodies and what effect it has once it’s there.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency overseeing PFOA announced that government and industry are working on a voluntary program that would eliminate 95 percent of the chemical’s emissions and contamination, from products, by 2010. However, a spokesman said the agency is not recommending consumers take any action at this time.

If consumers are confused and alarmed, it’s certainly understandable. If the ubiquitous chemical is as dangerous as environmental activists claim, why isn’t the EPA alerting consumers? However, if it is not dangerous, why is the agency trying to get the industry to eliminate it?

We believe it’s better to be safe than sorry, particularly with the findings linking PFOA to cancer in lab animals. The state should apply Proposition 65 and require manufacturers to label products containing the chemical. If consumers want to avoid it or accept the risk, the choice should be theirs.

Toxins released by the algae have poisoned dolphins, manatees, tons of fish and even contributed to the death of a 26-foot-long whale shark. The deluge of dead and rotting wildlife strewn across beaches has threatened to upturn the vital Florida tourist season